You are on page 1of 2

GO v.

RAMOS Jimmy filed a petition for habeas corpus again which the RTC denied but another CA
Jurisdiction | September 4, 2009 | Quisumbing, J. granted.
 Jimmy and Carlos filed a petition before this Court arguing that:
Nature of Case: Petition for Review o (1) being recognized by the government to have acquired Philippine
Digest maker: Caringal citizenship, evidenced by the Certificate of Election his citizenship could no
SUMMARY: Luis Ramos filed a complaint for deportation against Jimmy Go for allegedly longer be questioned at a later date;
being an illegal and undesirable alien. The Board of Commissioners ruled in favor of Luis, o (2) Board’s cause of action to deport him has prescribed for the simple
which the RTC and CA affirmed after two petitions for review from Jimmy. A third petition reason that his arrest was not made five years from the time the cause of
was filed after a different CA enjoined a second warrant of deportation from the Board of action arose, which allegedly commenced in 1989 when he was was
Commissioners since Jimmy was granted bail on the first one. The Court denied the first charged for illegally acquiring a Philippine passport;
two petitions stating that the Board of Commissioners has jurisdiction to try the deportation o (3) deportation proceeding should be nullified altogether for failure to
case since Jimmy failed to produce substantial evidence confirming his Philippine implead Carlos as an indispensable party;
citizenship, which could have granted him the right to avail of judicial determination of his o (4) the Board has jurisdiction to hear cases against an alleged alien,
case. however judicial intervention may be resorted to when the claim to
citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe
DOCTRINE: The Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation case. that the claim is correct;
Judicial determination is permitted ONLY in cases when the courts themselves believe that o (5) doctrine of jus soli (place of birth determines citizenship) should be
there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship. applied; and
o (6) even assuming that his father remained as a Chinese, Carlos also claims
FACTS: that he followed the citizenship of his Filipina mother, being an illegitimate
 The first two petitions in this case appealed the decision of RTC Pasig upholding the son.
filing of deportation charges against Jimmy Go and the proceedings conducted
thereunder. The third petition seeks to set aside the decision of the CA resolution ISSUE/S & RATIO:
enjoining the final warrant of deporatation against Jimmy. 1. WON the evidence adduced by Jimmy and Carlos to prove their claim of citizenship
 All three petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit initiated by Luis Ramos is substantial and sufficient to oust the Board of its jurisdiction from continuing with
before the Bureau of Immigration against Jimmy Go alleging that the latter is an the deportation proceedings to give way to a formal judicial action to determine
illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a alienage? - NO
Filipino citizen, the latter’s circumstances and other records indicate that he is not.
Specifically, Jimmy’s birth certificate issued by Iloilo City indicates his citizenship (1) The cause of action has not prescribed as argued by Jimmy and Carlos since cases involving
as”FChinese”. Further, although it appears that Jimmy’s parents are indicated as citizenship are sui generis. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot
Filipinos, the documents seem to be tampered because the citizenship information govern a person’s future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently
appears to be handwritten. Lastly, Luis contended that through fraud, Jimmy reacquire or lose his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law.
managed to fake his citizenship and procure a Philippine passport in Sept 1989.
 Jimmy refuted all allegations by averring that the complaint filed was merely a (2) The 5-year period should be counted only from the time Luis filed the complaint for
harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in his business dealings deportation. It is the legal possibility of bringing the action which determines the starting point
with Luis. He argued that he is an illegitimate son of a Filipino mother and a Chinese for the computation of prescription. The counting could not logically start in 1989 when his
father (Carlos) who speaks fluent Ilonggo and Tagalog and who elected Philippine passport was issued because the government was unaware that he was not a Filipino citizen.
citizenship. The second circumstance is evidenced by an affidavit of election in 1950,
although said oath and affidavit were only registered in 1956. He further argued that (3) Carlos is not an indeispensable party. He does not stand to be benefited or injured by the
he successfully voted in 1952 and 1955. judgment of the suit. What is sought is the deportation of Jimmy on the ground that he is an
 Associate Commissioner dismissed the complaint against Jimmy but the Board of alien. Hence, the principal issue that will be decided on is the propriety of his deportation.
Commissioners (Board) reversed said dismissal stating that the election of
Citizenship was made out of time. (4) The Board has the authority to hear and determine the deportation case. Judicial
 A Charge Sheet against Jimmy was filed for violating the Phil Immigration Act of determination is permitted ONLY in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is
1940 which led to Carlos and Jimmy filing the first petition for certiorari and substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship. So substantial that there are
prohibition in RTC Pasig challenging the Board’s jurisdiction. During proceedings, reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. Moreover, when the evidence
the Board issued a decision ordering the deportation of Jimmy so the latter filed submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should
also be recognized and the courts shall promptly enjoin the deportation proceeding. In the
another petition for certiorari and prohibition which was dismissed. MR denied.
case at bar, the CA was not convinced that the same was sufficient to oust the Board of its
 Following the dismissal, a petition for habeas corpus was filed after Jimmy was
jurisdiction to continue with the deportation proceedings considering that the birth
apprehended, although it was dismissed by reason of his provision release on bail.
certificates of Jimmy, as well as those of his siblings, indicate that they are Chinese
 CA affirmed the first two RTC decisions. Then, another warrant of deportation by citizens. Furthermore, like the Board, it found the election of Carlos of Philippine
Alipio Fernandez was issued to finally carry out the decision to deport Jimmy. So citizenship irregular as it was not made on time. There is no cogent reason to overturn the
above findings of the CA. The question of whether substantial evidence had been presented
to allow immediate recourse to the regular courts is a question of fact which is beyond this
Court’s power of review. It should also be made a point that this decision is not a ruling that
they are not Filipinos because the Court is only tasked to determine whether the deportation
proceedings may be enjoined in order to give way to a judicial determination of the
same. Passing upon the citizenship is just incidental to that cause.

(5) – (6) Doctrine of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines. Moreover, it is a settled rule
that only legitimate children follow the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children
are under the parental authority of the mother and follow her nationality. However, absent
any evidence proving that Carlos is indeed an illegitimate son of a Filipina, the aforestated
established rule could not be applied to him.

(7) Allegation that due process was not observed in the deportation proceedings must likewise
fail. Although Jimmy was not furnished with a copy of the subject Resolution and Charge
Sheet as alleged by him, the trial court found that he was given ample opportunity to explain
his side and present controverting evidence

RULING: Petitions DENIED